Make Emacs taste like TextMate
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 1
I frigging love TextMate. I love the directory browsing "project" system, I love the fact that it's dead simple to create custom macros/commands (using bash/python/ruby/perl!), and I love its snippets features.
However. It's not cheap, not cross-platform, and the "Emacs-like keybindings" are just bastardized enough to drive me up the wall. So I'm sticking with Emacs for now.
For anyone interested, here are some quick ways to modify the One True Editor to behave a bit more like TextMate:
Directory browsing of projects: Try Emacs Code Browser.
Snippets: Check out msf-abbrev. You'll be able to specify cursor location, fields, etc. similar to TextMate. I've also heard good things about Skeleton Mode).
Macros: Try the Power Macros package.
Quick(er) buffer-switching: The ido.el package works wonders for me. Note: If you're used to running dired from find-file, you'll want to set ido-show-dot-for-dired to t in your.emacs.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... you're telling me BoingBoing was the first to report a story that involved an interview with THEIR MAIN CONTRIBUTOR?
You're telling me Cory Doctorow reported an interview WITH HIMSELF way before Slashdot reported it?
Holy shit. And next you're going to tell me Microsoft's the first to publish their own press releases.
Seriously. Some people will bitch about anything, before they even consider the facts.
Re:Warning - Geeky Grammar Objection
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 1
Actually, if you read TFA, that sentence makes a lot more sense. I read it as a fragment, as in: "Which articles? The articles about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand."
Granted, even in context, it's confusing. Were I his editor, I would have made him change it.
Do some research on user interfaces. In particular, read up on Fitts' Law. Then come back and tell us why the Windows "every menu bar attached to its own window" is superior to the Mac's single menu bar at the top of the screen.
On a Mac, the user just needs to swipe the mouse toward the top, and he'll hit the menu bar. The pointer is "trapped" at the top of the screen, even if he overshoots. Essentially, he's aiming for a very LARGE space that extends beyond the boundary of the screen.
On Windows machines, however, you've gotta really *aim* for those menu bars. They're in the middle of the screen, and you can easily overshoot them. It doesn't matter how much closer they are: they're still tougher to hit.
This study is beyond flawed. It has nothing to do with writing or interpretation skills.
Why? Let's look at the procedure: The researchers gave the students a list of 20 statements. The students then selected one of these pre-written statements and emailed it to someone else, and when they did so, they thought "okay, I'm being sarcastic," or "okay, I'm being serious."
Let's say the statment I selected was "I really like milk." I either emailed that statement while thinking: "gosh, I really DO like milk," or: "actually, I'm lying. I hate milk." And then, what, the person who receives the email is somewhow supposed to deduce, from a sentence which I didn't even write, which of the two I was thinking?
My god, people. How about I flip a freaking coin, and then you try to guess how it lands? I wonder if you'll do "better than chance," whatever the hell that means.
From what I understand, that was merely a rumor. Intel had demo'd a new flash-based caching technology a while back, and all the Macheads jumped on this as a sign of things to come in Apple laptops. I doubt it materialized -- if the MacBook used NAND flash for booting up, wouldn't Steve-o have said something about it in his keynote?
Who knows, though. The damn things don't ship until February in any case.
Yeah, paying for the software itself. MySQL's licensing scheme, from what I can remember, is hazy to say the least. There's a "commercial" license and the regular GPL license. You have to choose one or the other, and their criteria are vague.
They recommend that all commercial entities use the commercial license. And if you call them to discuss the ins and outs of their licensing scheme, they'll try to talk you into the commercial license anyway.
From TFA: Once TV stations switch to digital transmission, they will return to the government a big chunk of the radio spectrum they currently use to transmit their analog channels. Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina.
Why, why WHY? Why must the government/media always raise the specter of terrorism and "national security," even when it's clearly only peripherally related?
Come on, let's be honest. This legislation for a mandatory switch to digital has always been about money. The switch to digital allows the media companies to use all sorts of nifty DRM, like broadcast flags, to prevent unauthorized copying. A lot of people stand to make a whole hell of a lot of money from this, and the average consumer has a lot to lose (obsolete TVs, VCRs, DVRs, etc).
It's about MONEY, for chrissake. So let's NOT talk about terrorism here. Let's NOT invoke the name of September Eleventh when talking about digital TV.
Sure, ONE side effect of this legistlation is that we'll have more free radio spectrum, which emergency responders MAY eventually utilize, which MAY help in emergency situations. But the fact that this is a POSSIBILITY does NOT necessitate linking digital TV with "protection from terrorism!" Unfortunately, the ads being run and the articles being written are doing just that.
From TFA: Once TV stations switch to digital transmission, they will return to the government a big chunk of the radio spectrum they currently use to transmit their analog channels. Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina.
Why, why WHY? Why must the government/media always raise the specter of terrorism and "national security," even when it's clearly only peripherally related?
Come on, let's be honest. This legislation for a mandatory switch to digital has always been about money. The switch to digital allows the media companies to use all sorts of nifty DRM, like broadcast flags, to prevent unauthorized copying. A lot of people stand to make a whole hell of a lot of money from this, and the average consumer has a lot to lose (obsolete TVs, VCRs, DVRs, etc).
It's about MONEY, for chrissake. So let's NOT talk about terrorism here. Let's NOT invoke the name of September Eleventh when talking about digital TV.
Sure, ONE side effect of this legistlation is that we'll have more free radio spectrum, which emergency responders MAY eventually utilize, which MAY help in emergency situations. But the fact that this is a POSSIBILITY does NOT necessitate linking digital TV with "protection from terrorism!" Unfortunately, the ads being run and the articles being written are doing just that.
The article summary innacurately quotes the virus. It does NOT say "lol no it's not a virus."
According to TFA, the virus is sent with the message "lol that's cool," and if questioned, responds with: "lol no its not its a virus" or, if punctuated correctly: "lol. no, it's not [cool]. it's a virus."
Give the virus some credit. It's trying to be honest and forthcoming.
"They're still talking about a f*cking missile defense shield... in this day and age. It's been f*cking twenty years. They're still talking about a missile defense shield... What in the f*ck is a missile defense shield and how does it work? Nobody has told us. They take our money--take money out of our pockets and then it's going towards this missile defense shield and nobody explains what it is.
"And you sit there and you press them: 'What is a missile defense shield? How does it work?'
" [Government Official Voice:] 'Well... since you really want to know... (long pause)... Quite simply... (pause)... a missile defense shield... is a net... made of magic... held in place by pixies.' "
Because they will be building a phone book. Actually they will be building a huge personal profile, that just happens to include your phone number.
Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. Their FAQ doesn't allay my fears much, either:
3. Is this just a way for Google to track me? No. We take your privacy very seriously.... In addition, we retain your information (including your phone number, date, time, and call length) only temporarily. It will be deleted from our servers after a period reasonably necessary to operate, audit, and evaluate the service.
Okay, so your number will be deleted after they've "evaluated" the service... Sounds good. Except that this is coming from the company that keeps their new projects in "beta" for, like, aeons.
In summary... all our phone number are belong to Google. Until they "evaluate" the service, of course.
Heh. This reminds me of the opening scene in Max Barry's novel, Jennifer Government. In it, some (fictional) Nike executives get together and decide that they're going to:
a) restrict supply of their new super-super-hot Nike Mercury shoes to a trickle, so the kids go *nuts* for them, then:
b) unload a few hundred thousand on the market at a hugely inflated price, and THEN:
c) since Nike knows they'll lose that "can't-find-'em-anywhere, selling-like-hotcakes" prestige once people realize they can get Mercuries anywhere, they start shooting a few of the people who buy them to further build street cred.
d) PROFIT!
So, uh, if you're lining up to buy a 360, just watch out for snipers.
From TFA: The Velociraptor dinosaur... was not as vicious as portrayed. On the contrary, it embraced its victims before its razor sharp teeth went to work...
This business model would not deprive the writers of my money, assuming they are good enough for me to want to buy.
Just to clarify... If you're buying the lit magazine, you're not paying the author directly. The author's already been paid. Short story writers published in lit mags get money on acceptance, but rarely get any royalties for sales of the magazine.
Intergalactic Medicine Show apparently gives the author royalties *if the story is anthologized.* This is different. This means that if they decide later on to publish a print collection and put your story in it, (or if they sell your story to antoher publishing house for a print collection), you will get a cut of the sales of that collection. The royalties are split between all authors in the collection. To me, this is the only part of the agreement that looks at all good for the author. The author doesn't have any control over where, who, when, and how the work is anthologized, but hell, at least they get paid a little.
As far as electronic rights go... For most publishers, electronic rights are usually just "web publishing" rights. E.g., I buy first serial and electronic rights for a story from you, then I publish your story in the print magazine and simultaneously post your story (or an excerpt) on the magazine's website. At this point, most publishers don't make money from the electronic version directly--they use it primarily as a marketing tool for the print version of the magazine. Again, authors usually don't get royalties from magazine sales.
In any case, my point was that this magazine actually purchases more rights from the author than any lit magazine I've ever heard of. Which can't be a good thing, can it? =)
From the/. article summary: "Card wants your stories and art, not your copyright."
Ummm, not to question the great slashdot editors, but this is *standard practice* for lit magazines, both in print and online. The author USUALLY retains the copyright for published work. Nothing unique here.
Also, most print lit magazines only purchase first serial rights and/or some type of one-time anthology rights. Card's magazine purchases EVERYTHING, all rights, for an entire year. This agreement is actually worse for writers than what most publications offer.
As for having all rights (except online rights, which they keep forever!!) returned to the author after a year, this seems great... except when you consider:
a) for many print/web literary publications, rights return to the author immediately after publication.
b) that the author won't be able to sell the story very easily if it's appeared in another magazine before. Editors want FIRST serial rights, so they can provide readers with unique, never-read-before content. When rights are returned to the author after a year, the author's not going to be able to do much with them, except for maybe putting the story in a print anthology.
Sorry slashdot editors, but this looks like a not-so-hot deal for authors.
Slashdot Mirror
I frigging love TextMate. I love the directory browsing "project" system, I love the fact that it's dead simple to create custom macros/commands (using bash/python/ruby/perl!), and I love its snippets features.
.emacs.
However. It's not cheap, not cross-platform, and the "Emacs-like keybindings" are just bastardized enough to drive me up the wall. So I'm sticking with Emacs for now.
For anyone interested, here are some quick ways to modify the One True Editor to behave a bit more like TextMate:
Directory browsing of projects: Try Emacs Code Browser.
Snippets: Check out msf-abbrev. You'll be able to specify cursor location, fields, etc. similar to TextMate. I've also heard good things about Skeleton Mode).
Macros: Try the Power Macros package.
Quick(er) buffer-switching: The ido.el package works wonders for me. Note: If you're used to running dired from find-file, you'll want to set ido-show-dot-for-dired to t in your
You're telling me Cory Doctorow reported an interview WITH HIMSELF way before Slashdot reported it?
Holy shit. And next you're going to tell me Microsoft's the first to publish their own press releases.
Seriously. Some people will bitch about anything, before they even consider the facts.
Granted, even in context, it's confusing. Were I his editor, I would have made him change it.
If you can't get your English right, stop calling yourselves English speakers.
I love it when stupid posts write their own responses.
On a Mac, the user just needs to swipe the mouse toward the top, and he'll hit the menu bar. The pointer is "trapped" at the top of the screen, even if he overshoots. Essentially, he's aiming for a very LARGE space that extends beyond the boundary of the screen.
On Windows machines, however, you've gotta really *aim* for those menu bars. They're in the middle of the screen, and you can easily overshoot them. It doesn't matter how much closer they are: they're still tougher to hit.
Why? Let's look at the procedure: The researchers gave the students a list of 20 statements. The students then selected one of these pre-written statements and emailed it to someone else, and when they did so, they thought "okay, I'm being sarcastic," or "okay, I'm being serious."
Let's say the statment I selected was "I really like milk." I either emailed that statement while thinking: "gosh, I really DO like milk," or: "actually, I'm lying. I hate milk." And then, what, the person who receives the email is somewhow supposed to deduce, from a sentence which I didn't even write, which of the two I was thinking?
My god, people. How about I flip a freaking coin, and then you try to guess how it lands? I wonder if you'll do "better than chance," whatever the hell that means.
...Sigh.
Not only does the parent post make fun of horrible grammar, it does so IN LATIN. I mean, how much more awesome can you get?
Who knows, though. The damn things don't ship until February in any case.
They recommend that all commercial entities use the commercial license. And if you call them to discuss the ins and outs of their licensing scheme, they'll try to talk you into the commercial license anyway.
Here's a nice blog entry about this scariness.
P.S. You're right. You *are* the bad analogy guy. You win.
Why, why WHY? Why must the government/media always raise the specter of terrorism and "national security," even when it's clearly only peripherally related?
Come on, let's be honest. This legislation for a mandatory switch to digital has always been about money. The switch to digital allows the media companies to use all sorts of nifty DRM, like broadcast flags, to prevent unauthorized copying. A lot of people stand to make a whole hell of a lot of money from this, and the average consumer has a lot to lose (obsolete TVs, VCRs, DVRs, etc).
It's about MONEY, for chrissake. So let's NOT talk about terrorism here. Let's NOT invoke the name of September Eleventh when talking about digital TV.
Sure, ONE side effect of this legistlation is that we'll have more free radio spectrum, which emergency responders MAY eventually utilize, which MAY help in emergency situations. But the fact that this is a POSSIBILITY does NOT necessitate linking digital TV with "protection from terrorism!" Unfortunately, the ads being run and the articles being written are doing just that.
Holy crap! I din't even come CLOSE to posting that in the right article, did I?
**hangs head in shame**
Why, why WHY? Why must the government/media always raise the specter of terrorism and "national security," even when it's clearly only peripherally related?
Come on, let's be honest. This legislation for a mandatory switch to digital has always been about money. The switch to digital allows the media companies to use all sorts of nifty DRM, like broadcast flags, to prevent unauthorized copying. A lot of people stand to make a whole hell of a lot of money from this, and the average consumer has a lot to lose (obsolete TVs, VCRs, DVRs, etc).
It's about MONEY, for chrissake. So let's NOT talk about terrorism here. Let's NOT invoke the name of September Eleventh when talking about digital TV.
Sure, ONE side effect of this legistlation is that we'll have more free radio spectrum, which emergency responders MAY eventually utilize, which MAY help in emergency situations. But the fact that this is a POSSIBILITY does NOT necessitate linking digital TV with "protection from terrorism!" Unfortunately, the ads being run and the articles being written are doing just that.
it has two buttons.
The article summary innacurately quotes the virus. It does NOT say "lol no it's not a virus."
According to TFA, the virus is sent with the message "lol that's cool," and if questioned, responds with: "lol no its not its a virus" or, if punctuated correctly: "lol. no, it's not [cool]. it's a virus."
Give the virus some credit. It's trying to be honest and forthcoming.
I think David Cross said it best:
"They're still talking about a f*cking missile defense shield ... in this day and age. It's been f*cking twenty years. They're still talking about a missile defense shield... What in the f*ck is a missile defense shield and how does it work? Nobody has told us. They take our money--take money out of our pockets and then it's going towards this missile defense shield and nobody explains what it is.
"And you sit there and you press them: 'What is a missile defense shield? How does it work?'
" [Government Official Voice:] 'Well ... since you really want to know... (long pause) ... Quite simply ... (pause) ... a missile defense shield... is a net... made of magic ... held in place by pixies.' "
Because they will be building a phone book. Actually they will be building a huge personal profile, that just happens to include your phone number.
Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. Their FAQ doesn't allay my fears much, either:
3. Is this just a way for Google to track me?
No. We take your privacy very seriously.... In addition, we retain your information (including your phone number, date, time, and call length) only temporarily. It will be deleted from our servers after a period reasonably necessary to operate, audit, and evaluate the service.
Okay, so your number will be deleted after they've "evaluated" the service... Sounds good. Except that this is coming from the company that keeps their new projects in "beta" for, like, aeons.
In summary... all our phone number are belong to Google. Until they "evaluate" the service, of course.
Heh. This reminds me of the opening scene in Max Barry's novel, Jennifer Government. In it, some (fictional) Nike executives get together and decide that they're going to:
a) restrict supply of their new super-super-hot Nike Mercury shoes to a trickle, so the kids go *nuts* for them, then:
b) unload a few hundred thousand on the market at a hugely inflated price, and THEN:
c) since Nike knows they'll lose that "can't-find-'em-anywhere, selling-like-hotcakes" prestige once people realize they can get Mercuries anywhere, they start shooting a few of the people who buy them to further build street cred.
d) PROFIT!
So, uh, if you're lining up to buy a 360, just watch out for snipers.
From TFA: The Velociraptor dinosaur... was not as vicious as portrayed. On the contrary, it embraced its victims before its razor sharp teeth went to work...
Awww, look. He wants to hug me!
This business model would not deprive the writers of my money, assuming they are good enough for me to want to buy.
Just to clarify... If you're buying the lit magazine, you're not paying the author directly. The author's already been paid. Short story writers published in lit mags get money on acceptance, but rarely get any royalties for sales of the magazine.
Intergalactic Medicine Show apparently gives the author royalties *if the story is anthologized.* This is different. This means that if they decide later on to publish a print collection and put your story in it, (or if they sell your story to antoher publishing house for a print collection), you will get a cut of the sales of that collection. The royalties are split between all authors in the collection. To me, this is the only part of the agreement that looks at all good for the author. The author doesn't have any control over where, who, when, and how the work is anthologized, but hell, at least they get paid a little.
As far as electronic rights go... For most publishers, electronic rights are usually just "web publishing" rights. E.g., I buy first serial and electronic rights for a story from you, then I publish your story in the print magazine and simultaneously post your story (or an excerpt) on the magazine's website. At this point, most publishers don't make money from the electronic version directly--they use it primarily as a marketing tool for the print version of the magazine. Again, authors usually don't get royalties from magazine sales.
In any case, my point was that this magazine actually purchases more rights from the author than any lit magazine I've ever heard of. Which can't be a good thing, can it? =)
From the /. article summary: "Card wants your stories and art, not your copyright."
Ummm, not to question the great slashdot editors, but this is *standard practice* for lit magazines, both in print and online. The author USUALLY retains the copyright for published work. Nothing unique here.
Also, most print lit magazines only purchase first serial rights and/or some type of one-time anthology rights. Card's magazine purchases EVERYTHING, all rights, for an entire year. This agreement is actually worse for writers than what most publications offer.
As for having all rights (except online rights, which they keep forever!!) returned to the author after a year, this seems great... except when you consider:
a) for many print/web literary publications, rights return to the author immediately after publication.
b) that the author won't be able to sell the story very easily if it's appeared in another magazine before. Editors want FIRST serial rights, so they can provide readers with unique, never-read-before content. When rights are returned to the author after a year, the author's not going to be able to do much with them, except for maybe putting the story in a print anthology.
Sorry slashdot editors, but this looks like a not-so-hot deal for authors.